Posted
by
samzenpuson Friday April 25, 2014 @12:29AM
from the keep-your-bombs-to-yourself dept.

mdsolar (1045926) writes "The tiny Pacific republic of the Marshall Islands, scene of massive U.S. nuclear tests in the 1950s, sued the United States and eight other nuclear-armed countries on Thursday, accusing them of failing in their obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The Pacific country accused all nine nuclear-armed states of 'flagrant violation of international law' for failing to pursue the negotiations required by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It filed one suit specifically directed against the United States, in the Federal District Court in San Francisco, while others against all nine countries were lodged at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, capital of the Netherlands, a statement from an anti-nuclear group backing the suits said. The action was supported by South African Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation said."

Ironically, the notion of reacquiring nuclear weapons as a security guarantee is a position publicly advocated by Putin himself: "If you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security.... This is logical: If you have the bomb, no one will touch

The Dutch defense department says several NATO member countries scrambled jets Wednesday afternoon after a pair of Russian bomber planes approached their airspace over the North Sea.

The Dutch ministry identified the planes as two Russian TU-95 Bears, and said it had launched two F-16s from Volkel air force base to intercept them. The Russian jets were escorted by aircraft from the Netherlands, Britain and Denmark until they departed.

Putin wanted Ukraine to build a nuclear arsenal, because he knew that they would have to buy back the ones they gifted Russian in order to do so. Ukraine does not have a nuclear weapons program and would be starting from scratch. So no, Ukraine is not about to "go nuclear".

Russia Threatens Invasion Unless Ukraine Stops Stopping Separatists

In other words: Military power threatens invasion based on made up issue. Gee, where have we heard that before? It sounds like something we've witnessed recently. Oh shocker! I turns out that is pretty much always the case when someone invades someone else. Putin lost the diplomacy battle and now he's doing what he does best, and what he really wanted to do all along.

Dutch scramble jets after Russian bombers approach

Russia sends bombers out all the time, allegedly to test "the enemy". The NATO air police missions in the Baltic regularly have to scramble against Russian aircraft. Of course, that doesn't make for much of a story, so I can see why a journalist would forget to ask how often something like that happens.

I doubt that either Ukraine or Russia foresees Ukraine buying back nuclear weapons from Russia to point back at Russia.

Ukraine inherited significant portions of the Soviet ICMB design and manufacturing infrastructure. They almost certainly have the needed expertise to build nuclear weapons as well. Ukraine has a significant nuclear power infrastructure.

After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia didn't send bombers to probe NATO and US defenses until the last few years. When and how that is done can also b

After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia didn't send bombers to probe NATO and US defenses until the last few years. When and how that is done can also be a signal.

2007. That's seven years ago now, and long before any dispute over Ukraine, though is around the time of the Russo-Georgian war. (And "NATO and US" defences is a bit redundant, given the US is part of NATO. AFAIK these incurious are typically dealt with by the RNoAF and RAF alone, with the USAF having nothing to do with them, and as such they

Most of which is in the Eastern Ukraine provinces, which are (popularly, as far as I hear from Auntie Vala, who lives there) moving towards secession. So I doubt that Ukraine will have that capability for more than a few days more.

What you "know" is wrong. Putin is doing it because he is trying to rebuild the power and prestige of Russia by assuming the legacy of the Soviet Union as a great power. There are many current and future negative consequences to that.

And NATO does exactly the same. Both sides test the awareness of the others all the time. Such "accidents" happen tens of times per year...of course the public is ignorant and unwilling to educate themselves so it is easy to manipulate in this manner....

The wackos are preparing for WWIII. It scares the hell out of me and don't you think for a second that there is a good guy in this mess. They are all guilty as sin – the Russians and the West.Do you know what actually happened? On a psychological/diplomatic/social level. The winners from the cold war turned out to be ungracious winners. Military doctrine states that after you win if you do not use your victory properly, if you overdo on punishing, pillaging and humiliating the losers, sooner or later they will rise aging and kick you. Germany after WWI anyone? Russia after the Cold war? First, the “sound financial advices” from the west almost destroyed Russia [don’t tell me you don’t know that IMF are the modern day slave-traders], the mafia gained the power, the military bases started cropping, the promise that NATO will not expand east was broken. What did you expect would happen after such humiliation and desperation? Naturally, a strong leader emerges [reinforced by historical tradition] that turns all the tables against the west and start solidifying the nation around anything, anything at all that is different from the western ideology.Very simple, but very notable example, just for illustration – the prevailing opinion in the east these days is that west is a bloated plutocracy populated chiefly with drug-users, pedos and gays [notice the lumping those people together in one group of “evils” – already the propaganda is apparent]. And the fact the west has all those evils is due to the very socio-economic system they live in so we should never, ever adapt it or even respect it – it only breeds “monsters”. And so on and so forth it goes.naturally similar stereotypes are propagandized in the west as well. So that when the bastards on the top make the wars they so much desire the people will support them since we are fighting sub-humans anywayThus, in my opinion, anyone who expresses preference to either side in this conflict is supporting the devils themselves and acts against his/her own interest and the interest of the species.

I'm not taking sides, because I don't believe either side has a cause worthy of siding with. Whenever a leader of a nation decides that rolling out the guns is the correct cause of action, they automatically lose whatever credibility their stated cause might have had. Leaders acting like school children, but employing the resources of a nation, are pathetic. Resources, mind you, that were created by the people. Leaders, also created by the people, set in place to manage said resources, and they're now playi

Most every military coup ever? Or for that matter most every coup ever, where a small cabal of natives manage to invade the government, openly or discretely, and seize control for their own ends. The end result is much the same as a foreign invader, even if the bloodshed is often less. What matters the nationality of your new masters?

Oh, how surprising and completely novel of you - what a genuinely modern outlook, all the while hiding behind the aptly named generic user name of anonymous coward.

The justification for deploying weapons is circular, the only reason you need them is because someone else also has them (see: Nuclear Deterrent, MAD). Deploying weapons is a means of getting what you want at the expense of the opponent and your population... They have guns (truth or lie, does not matter) so we must also purchase guns, all the wh

don’t tell me you don’t know that IMF are the modern day slave-traders

Funny you should mention that in an article about the Marshall Islands:( It's the only US territory where slavery is not just a freak occurrence perpetrated by a kidnapper but instead a more frequent event.

It looks to me like you've got that completely wrong, not the least of which is the strategic weapons Ukraine had were developed by the Soviet Union of which both Russia and Ukraine were a part. As to the rest...

Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more. Access to enriched nuclear materials isn't likely to be much of a problem.

Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.

Exactly, the weapon design bureau currently known as Pivdenne, one of the largest industrial enterprises in Ukraine, with 13,000 workers is located in Dnipropetrovsk in the East. Presumably this is what Russia wants to get hold of with its occupation of town halls by special forces. Given that Russian propaganda though blatant and obvious is being lapped up by the people of the world there is nothing anyone can or will do about this. The Syrian regime uses exactly the same methods and everyone sided with Pu

Exactly, the weapon design bureau currently known as Pivdenne, one of the largest industrial enterprises in Ukraine, with 13,000 workers is located in Dnipropetrovsk in the East...... The sooner the Americans get a conference together to organize handing over Eastern Ukraine to the Russians the better.

That is obviously backwards. It would seem that if Russia is becoming an imperialist aggressor to steal resources to make itself more powerful, some say to rebuild the Soviet Union, that the last thing the world should do is enable that. Othewise, where does it end? Until Putin says, "‘This Is the Last Territorial Demand I Have to Make in Europe’ [nationalreview.com]"?

You are utterly confused about who the real bullies in the world are. Why don't you look and see how China is threatening its neighbors and wants to take their territory? Why don't you look and see how Russia threatens its neighbors and takes territory? Both Russia and China threaten the use of nuclear weapons against their neighbors.

Your claim about the US denying black people the right to vote is a load of crap. If you think that the US atta

We can't really be sure. Some journalists heard Taliban government members suggesting handing over A.Q. to the USA on a plate. Whether that was true or not didn't really matter because there were no talks and there was no chance to sue for peace, not even the shouting "nice kitty" while looking for a stick that is the usual diplomacy while preparing for a war.Remember that it was a mostly Saudi group that just happened to be hiding in Afganistan after moving from Sudan.

NZ has fought in other peoples wars for a long time (like 99 years exactly April 25th is the 99th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings)My grandfather fought in the 1st World War middle east (NZ mounted rifles)

Other wars we fought include WWII, Korea and Vietnamin the 1st gulf war we sent mostly medical personel and transport planes.Our SAS was invloved in the early stages of the Afghanistan conflict just after 9/11And we helped the Aussies in East Timor (of course you probably never heard of that conflict)Its true that we didn't join in the 2003 Bush war in Iraq, but not many others did either.

The fact that we were kicked out of ANZUS because we wouldn't allow nuclear powered and armed ships and boats in our harbours is not our fault - there are many otther places in the world that don't let nukes in.)

But mostly NZ relies on the distance across the Pacific.Only one country has attacked us in the last 4 decades, and that was France.

That wasn't the justification for the 1991 invasion, which was spurred by the Iraqi invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait; I hope you knew that. The more recent war was misguided in the absolute best case, and criminal at worst.

I would put Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Japan in that list. South Korea had several programs which indicate they want to have the capability. The problem is their missile program is not advanced enough. Brazil started working on it decades ago when it was still a military dictatorship. South Africa actually tested a nuclear device once and then gave up on further development. Japan everyone knows they could do it. They even separate their own plutonium. But for historical reasons they have refrained

Japan also has a pacifist constitution. They maintain zero offensive capabilities, bar offensive capabilities that could be repurposed. There's not much defensive about a nuclear weapon (aside from MAD arguments).

It amuses me that we (the UK) have actually detonated about the same number of nuclear weapons as China.

Japan has already made changes to their pacifist constitution in order to provide their military with the legal means to expand it's military doctrine. They still rely 100% on the US protection but they are starting to hedge their bets and the US has no problems with Japan ramping up it's military capabilities.

Odd that. US has no problems with anyone they can call an ally beefing up their military. They complain when we talk about reducing ours (not that I mind - I work for a company that counts the MOD as one of its major clients).

South Africa actually tested a nuclear device once and then gave up on further development.

*Some* people think the Vela Incident [wikipedia.org] was a nuclear test, and the island is between South Africa and Antarctica, but Wikipedia hardly makes it sound definite. Other than that, there was one "cold test" (no nuclear material involved) that France et. al strongarmed them into cancelling.

The Vela Incident — sometimes referred to as the South Atlantic Flash — was an unidentified "double flash" of light detected by an American Vela Hotel satellite on September 22, 1979, near the Prince Edward Islands off Antarctica, which many believe was of nuclear origin. The most widespread theory among those who believe the flash was of nuclear origin is that it resulted from a joint South African and Israeli nuclear test.[1][2][3] The topic remains highly disputed today.

While a "double flash" signal is characteristic of a nuclear weapons test, the signal could also have been a spurious electronic signal generated by an aging detector in an old satellite, or a meteoroid hitting the Vela satellite. No corroboration of an explosion, such as the presence of nuclear byproducts in the air, was ever publicly acknowledged, even though there were numerous passes in the area by U.S. Air Force planes specifically designed to detect airborne radioactive dust. Other examiners of the data, including the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and defense contractors, have come to the conclusion that the flash was not a result of a nuclear detonation.[4][5][6] Much information about the event remains classified.

South Africa did actually have 6 nukes, and 1 more under construction. They dismantled them in 1989.

About every country in the world has been conquered at least once in their history. (In the U.S. and Canada, the occupation has not ended yet, the mainly white, protestant conquerors are still there).

I'm curious, which countries were invaded by the "mainly white, protestant conquerors"? Certainly not the US, which didn't even exist till centuries after the "white protestant conquerors" arrived. Or Canada, likewise.

mutually assured destruction somewhat works in preventing nuclear weapon use during warfare.and disarmament will only work if all country's that have nuclear weapons will disarm at exact the same time.

'The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation said the five original nuclear weapons states - The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - were all parties to the NPT, while the others - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea - were "bound by these nuclear disarmament provisions under customary international law."'

It's an excellent point though not a new one. One that is often studiously ignored by the media, so it's good to see it getting a little press. The terms of the NPT are pretty clear, and while they are unfortunately not operational and thus subject to all the normal lawyer tricks... the fact is every signatory has been pretty blatantly violating it almost from the moment of signing. No one has been negotiating in good faith towards eliminating nukes even after being maneuvered into solemnly agreeing on the record to do so.

The mainstream media outlets are always happy to press this case on North Korea. They have ratchetted back and forth a bit over Russia and China, but always at least hostile. Yet how often do they say anything about the other members of this 'club?'

And just how do these nuclear signatories of the NPT expect to have credibility in pushing non-signatory states to accept being bound to it by custom despite having deliberately declined to sign, when they themselves flaunt its obligations?

"The European Union is a pretty significant factor in preventing something like WWI or WWII,"

If by " something like WWI or WWII," you mean Germany attacking France then it has prevented that, However WWI and WWII also involved other countries and theatres or war, and the EU hasn't stopped a lot of those other conflicts which could spread into a wider war.

According to the Dutch constitution Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, although the parliament and the Dutch government have been situated in The Hague since 1588, along with the Supreme Court and the Council of State.[1][2]

A capital city or capital town (or simply capital) is the municipality enjoying primary status in a state, country, province, or other region as its seat of government. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution. In some jurisdictions, including several countries, the different branches of government are located in different settlements.

According to the Dutch constitution Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, although the parliament and the Dutch government have been situated in The Hague since 1588, along with the Supreme Court and the Council of State. [...] Only once during its history was Amsterdam both "capital" and seat of government. Between 1808 and 1810

So it sounds like Amsterdam is the capital about as much as USS Constitution is considered an active ship in the U.S. navy.

And yet since a capital is definitively defined as "the place a country's law says it is", having Congress pass a law stating that Henderson, Nevada is the capital of the United States of America would make it true. What's your point?

There's also the Supreme Court making decisions lately that say things that are clearly unconstitutional, aren't. So what I'm clearly implying is that your definition of "capital" is double-plus ungood.

Am I the only one that saw this? The capital of the Netherlands is Amterdam...

No, you are not alone. Interestingly the sentence came from the article itself - written by Reuters. I though Reuters was one of the places where you could find real journalists. So... you could say that/. reached the quality of Reuters which is undoubtedly a great achievement.

When it comes to things like free trade, our fearless leaders squawk about how their hands are tied because treaties. But here we have a treaty that they have managed to start ignoring completely before the ink even dried, and then for more than 40 years.

I was just reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos this evening. He mentions the Marshall Islands nuclear test near the end of the book:

The Hiroshima explosion, unlike the subsequent Nagasakiexplosion, was an air burst high above the surface, so the falloutwas insignificant. But on March 1, 1954, a thermonuclear weaponstest at Bikini in the Marshall Islands detonated at higher yieldthan expected. A great radioactive cloud was deposited on thetiny atoll of Rongalap, 150 kilometers away, where the inhabitantslikened the explosion to the Sun rising in the West. A fewhours later, radioactive ash fell on Rongalap like snow. Theaverage dose received was only about 175 rads, a little less thanhalf the dose needed to kill an average person. Being far from theexplosion, not many people died. Of course, the radioactivestrontium they ate was concentrated in their bones, and theradioactive iodine was concentrated in their thyroids. Two-thirds of the children and one-third of the adults later developedthyroid abnormalities, growth retardation or malignant tumors.In compensation, the Marshall Islanders received expert medicalcare.

... of anyone discussing the topic? In case everyone has forgotten, that is the attempt by the Marshall Islands to sue the nuclear powers for ignoring their obligations to disarm. Also to sue the USA for exploding nuclear and thermonuclear weapons on its (tiny) territory?

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Note that this part of the Treaty does NOT say that they have to continually pursue negotiations until the end of time. All they had to do was pursue negotiations ONCE in order to fulfill the Treaty.

There were regular nuclear disarmament negotiations during the 1970s and 1980s - right up until the point where one of the participants in the NNPT effectively disbanded.

For the US and Russia, they will point to arms reductions treaties over the years. China will say our arsenal is smaller than theirs. UK and France may opt for the same. India, Pakistan and North Korea will say they are not bound by the treaty and Israel will say "What weapons?" This is the latest effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

You can't sue the US government in court in the US without their consent, and I hardly think the DoD is going to tell the attorney general that they wish to waive sovereign immunity over the fate of our nuclear arsenal.

If there is a legal dispute and they want to take the US to court, then let them take the US to court.

Actually, I suspect the reason they filed a separate suit for the US is probably that the States unilaterally withdrew [wikipedia.org] from jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This is because they were upset of having been found guilty by that court of violating [wikipedia.org] many international laws in a case brought to the ICJ by Nicaragua.

And, more recently, the US even threatened with military action against The Netherlands if the ICJ were ever to consider cases against US military personnel. This became affectionately known as the The Hague Invasion Act [wikipedia.org], no less.

So no -- the US does not always respect the treaties they sign. See also: Geneva Convention.

You're confusing courts here. The Hague Invasion Act is directed against the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was only established in the late 1990s to try individuals charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes. The ICJ has been in existence since 1946 (and has a predecessor, the PCIJ or Permanent Court of International Justice set up under the League of Nations) and only tries inter-state cases, like the one you mentioned by Nicaragua in the 1980s.

If someone burned down Congress today, half the country would be cheering...

But yes. It's quite amusing what they teach American kids about the War of 1812.

When they started negotiating the treaty to end the war, the British, having won it (Canadian troops did much of the winning, but they were still part of the Empire back then), started by demanding territorial concessions, as is the usual case when winning a war. The Americans asserted that the British couldn't hold the territory they'd taken and refused to give it up, and the British were tired of fighting several wars at once (they were busy fighting Napoleon for most of the war and didn't devote much effort to the minor sideshow that was the war with the USA) so they gave in and agreed to simply return to status quo ante bellum, i.e. the state of affairs before the war began. Some would try to spin that as a "draw", but the British were fine with the state of affairs before the war, it was the US that declared the war in the first place, claiming that the state of affairs prior to the war were intolerable. Although no territory was lost, it was, in fact, a unequivocal defeat for the US. However, several of the reasons the US declared war to begin with were over measures the British were using to fight Napoleon. With Napoleon defeated, those measures came to an end (not because the British gave in, they continued to assert they had the right to do as they did -- they just had no more need to continue doing them). That plus some battlefield victories that occurred after the war was over but before news reached America of the signing of the peace treaty enabled the politicians in Washington to spin the defeat into an illusion of victory, and to this day, you will find many Americans who think they never lost a war before Vietnam, that we actually achieved our objectives in the War of 1812, and that the major victories weren't pointlessly fought after the war was already over but news hadn't reached us yet. Some of this comes from a slanted and incomplete way the story is taught in American classrooms, and some from flat-out misinformation. But in any case, don't be surprised if most Americans are completely incredulous when you try to remind us of the fact that we actually fought a war with the Canadians once... and they kicked our asses.

The battle of New Orleans was after the peace treaty was signed. Britain wasn't trying to reconqueror the colonies, it was trying to stop its Candian provinces from being conquered by an aggressive expansionist empire while at the same time trying to win a world war against a genocidal miltary despot. I think it suceeded quite well.

Depends on how you define "win". You sound suspiciously Canadian to me.

Yes, basically the War of 1812 was a failed attempt by the US to do a land grab on Canada and annex it by force, but there were some legitimate gripes by the US, notably the British practice of kidnapping American citizens and forcing them to serve in the British Navy, but that was not the only legitimate complaint on which to base the war. I cannot personally say how much or little "Canadian" forces played in the war. I'm pretty

I also am of the opinion that Canadians have very greatly exaggerated the role their militias played and while it isn't fair to say they did nothing, it's also not accurate at all to act, like you do, that they did almost all of the heavy lifting of the war in the US itself and the British were little more than interested spectators as you seem to imply.

The minutemen in the Revolutionary War are rather exaggerated too, apparently. Which is really saying something because the Continental Army got its ass kicked for a long time as well.

Your summary of the war of 1812 is good. I am a Canadian, and the only thing I would add is to clarify the whole British vs. Canadian issue.

In 1812, the only people in Canada (then British North America) who would think of themselves as Canadian were the French colonists of Lower Canada (now Quebec). The French Canadians were basically the remnants of New France, and the first people to use the name 'Canada' on a map.

The rest of the country (which like the US of the time had not yet expanded west) was split